Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples

Absolutely no consensus to move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Before requesting a move review, it's required to discuss the move on the talk page. There was absolute no consensus to move this page to Genocide of indigenous peoples. Like many other Indigenous editors who opposed the proposed movement, I made my statements and stopped contributing to the ENDLESS, REPETITIVE, and at times HOSTILE discussion by editors who clearly were willing argue against global style guides in the hopes that someday the discussion would be accurately closed as NO CONSENSUS, since that is obviously what happened. Repeating oneself endless does not negate the clear votes that OPPOSED the move. Yuchitown (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are supposed to discuss the objections with the closer on their talk page (and not write on the closed archive, lol). Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone:, see above. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never done this before. Yuchitown (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MR "Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below." Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Regarding Genocide of indigenous peoples I agree there was no consensus for this move. Additionally I do not think it should be a non-admin closure given the complexity and "temperature" of the discussion. If this discussion is to be closed at this time, the very least a closer should do is present an in-depth, thoughtful, analytical and thoroughly well-reasoned rationale, not what seems to be a two sentence drive-by closure. I want to assume good faith, however it is unclear from the summary whether the closer read the various arguments and examples. Netherzone (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

(BTW, I had added my comment above because of the lengthy threading of all these discussions, especially of this length, I wanted to be certain that my comment was understood to be in response to the closer's comment at the top of the specific discussion on this talk page. I don't participate in many of these types of discussions, so if it was placed incorrectly, please forgive me for that.) Netherzone (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there is pretty clearly no consensus to keep the article at "Indigenous". Therefore, per WP:TITLECHANGES it should be moved back to "indigenous" regardless of whether there is consensus for doing so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It was moved in August 2023, so there is a fair argument that is WP:QUO (ie stable). Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clear consensus to move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The closer said there was consensus — i.e.there was 22 who supported and only 12 who opposed, while arguments were also considered, as should be done. "No consensus" usually occurs when the difference in votes is marginal. This wasn't the case here. Most of those who opposed cherry picked their sources favoring "style guides" and such, and ignored the bulk of sources as delineated by NGRAMS, per WP policy i.e..Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial -- "Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics)" . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There's already a section discussing the close. Please use that discussion instead of creating new threads where people have to repeat themselves.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the Post-close discussion section occurs right below the MOVE conference, above. Apparently both sections were created about the same time. We can move that section below this one, or this one below it. In any case, I've no inclination of rehashing the same arguments all over again. Consensus has spoken, per neutrality. If someone is strongly disagreeing, favoring treatment of indigenous peoples over colonial and religious people, he or she can present the matter to an appropriate forum. Good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a travesty and shows the engrained racial bias of Wikipedia and multiple editors that shouldn't be editing articles on Indigenous people when they hold the position that our identity is equal to rocks and plants. Shameful. --ARoseWolf 15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Including Israel/ Palestine

There was an RFC about this and closed as no consensus. An editor has reverted the material arguing QUO and I have reverted back because no consensus means more discussion not less. In addition, there has already been further discussion about this above at #he_Israel_section_suffers_from_lack_of_RS,_weasel_language_and_mostly_violation_of_NPOV that the reverting editor appears to have overlooked as they have not participated there at all (I have posted there about this previously). Finally, the "Allegations" article has since then been closed as "Gaza genocide" so things have changed quite a bit since the close. So that's what I suggest, either continue the discussion in that section or begin again here, I don't mind which. Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

We can continue the discussion, but before we do in the absence of consensus for inclusion the content must be removed, and I ask that you self-revert your restoration. BilledMammal (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the discussion above about what the status quo is agreed to be. If you want to reopen this, you should know the context. But your ask is unlikely to be answered if you don't engage with the existing convo on this page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There is not much more to be said that wasn’t already said in the RFC.

This section was boldly added in May and immediately contested, and then subject to a protracted dispute. Clearly, the status quo is exclusion, and editors who want to include it should open a new RFC after sufficient time has passed. BilledMammal (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh did not realize was a talk after close.....yes normal course of action after a bold addition that has been contested and has not gained consensus for inclusion is for its removal. To anyone knowledgeable in our processes this is clear WP:NOCONSENSUS. Moxy🍁 20:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

A) We already chatted about this in "The Israel section suffers from lack of RS, weasel language and mostly violation of NPOV"

B) The no consensus version before all this rfc started was in March, with the section already in

C) This section has spent more time in this article in 2024 than removed at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Just mentioned this on the policy page that we have a new generation of editors that don't have the same interpretation as us old timers due to wording changes over the years. Policy was clearly clearer before in my view. How people think that content that has been contested and with an RFC about its inclusion results in no consensus results in material staying is simply out to lunch....thank god our BLP is more clear about contentious material. Moxy🍁 20:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said, the issue is not so clear cut and as I said above, that while I would have preferred the closer of that RFC to have looked into the QUO matter, they did not and here we are. The best remedy is more discussion, what I fail to understand is how material about Gaza genocide and South Africa's genocide case against Israel cannot be in this article, that strikes me as being rather a quaint argument. To me the issue is not whether something should be in the article, but what exactly it should say and what would be due. Now we can either work that out or I am perfectly willing to go to RFC again based on the changed set of circumstances. Selfstudier (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The RFC was about whether it should be included at all.

You’re welcome to start a new RFC - although personally I think it would be premature - but in the meantime you need to self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The RFC was about whether it should be included at all and the result was no consensus (to include or exclude).

Moxy is asking the question about QUO (when Nocon) at the boards, I say the closer left it up in the air for editors to sort out but if it turns into another revert/revert/revert type of thing, I see no alternative to another RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Our policy is clear to me..... the current wording and sourcing is a point of contention and the current format does not have consensus to be in the article (ever since it was boldly inserted and after an RFC).... more discussion is needed before inclusion.... simply need another proposal. Just because there was an editwar by new editors (some that have been blocked) and it happens to have been there for sometime does not negate the fact that there has no consensus to be in there from the beginning in its current format. More experienced editor simply do not engage in edit wars.... this is not mean it should be there. Moxy🍁 21:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, more experienced or not, you and me and BM have each made a revert and I maintain that the issue needs to be discussed. And if not then another RFC it will have to be. Selfstudier (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

And in the meantime, while it is being discussed, the status quo should remain. As such, please self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

QUO is not as clear as you make it out to be. How about this, we ask the question at a/the board (not sure which) specifically for this case and ask whether in this particular set of circumstances, what does QUO entail? Selfstudier (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That would be WP:AN3, but I would prefer not to bring this to the drama boards - this was an edit that was added WP:BOLDly and disputed less than six weeks later, on a page with a relatively low number of active watchers and a relatively low amount of traffic. That isn't the "stable version" or "status quo".

As such, I ask either you or Bluethricecreamman (who I note has previously reverted to include this content, and will thus be at more risk of sanctions if this goes to AN3) to self-revert and get consensus for its inclusion. BilledMammal (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean... your the one who keeps getting blocked if i look at the block log, billedM.

and you haven't engaged with WP:NOCONSENSUS definition that folks keep talking about here.

I'm happy to go to arbitration to discuss further. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy to go to the ordinary Admin noticeboard, don't really see anyone edit warring here, so that's just unhelpful, really. Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."

The deletion RFC happened in May. The addition of the Palestine Israel section happened in March. The fact that the current version is odious to you and not odious to me does nothing to change the fact that there was no consensus and we should follow the protocol. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The materials been contested the whole time in his current format..... Just because experience editors did not engage in edit wars because they're aware of the contentious topic.... does not mean those blocked editors should get priority. Moxy🍁 21:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Side note ..... article off my watch list. Moxy🍁 21:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the reverting is in full swing with another one coming in and there appears to be zero interest on the part of deleters to engage in any discussion, therefore I intend to shortly initiate another RFC to address the issue. Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC Palestine

Should this article mention any or all of Gaza genocide, Palestinian genocide accusation and South Africa's genocide case against Israel? Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

See #RFC: Palestinian genocide accusations and post close discussions. The RFC ended with no consensus followed by further discussion/editing as to whether material should be kept or removed per WP:NOCONSENSUS. The further discussions have also not achieved any consensus and this RFC is opened to settle the matter. Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOCONSENSUS suggests that in scenarios of no consensus, the article goes back to before the RFC. The original RFC was started in May, and the section was added in March. By the logic, the material should remain while RFC continues.

Also, it remains difficult to run this RFC if the material is missing from the page. People should be allowed to edit the material while the RFC runs. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

NOCONSENSUS only says that's what's statistically likely to happen; it does not say that's what should happen. Also, there is no rule requiring the material to remain in place while the RFC happens, and it doesn't seem logical to me. Editors who are experienced enough to make a useful contribution to this discussion should be able to read a diff or look at an old version of the article.

I do agree that people should be allowed to edit the page (including parts under discussion, if they use some discretion) while the RFC runs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with Bluethricecreamman on this one. The stable version (it's been there since March) stays while the RfC is open. M.Bitton (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how I got pinged.....It's been removed multiple times since it was boldly added so much so that they ended up having an RFC. This is why we are having a hard time keeping academic editors and losing old time content editors.... edit warriors are winning..... when it has nothing to do with what winning. Moxy🍁 21:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't get it off your watchlist even when you try, haha. Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Did someone ping me then remove it? Wish we had the capability of blocking pings from selective pages. Moxy🍁 21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you have subscribed to this RFC (at top right)? If so, hit that again and it will unsubscribe you. Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Omg that's posible.... I have automatic subscribed initiated turning it off now. Good luck everyone.... it's a very contentious topic.... and has made me lose respect for a few editors. Moxy🍁 21:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to be considering more than just yes/no votes. There is demand for this to be mentioned and for this not to be declared a genocide. Is there a way to meet everyone's goals? For example, could we sensibly write something like "Alice says that this is a genocide, but Bob says it's not genocide, it's not colonialism, and they're not indigenous people anyway"? Would a ==See also== link be enough?

Alternatively, do we need a section on non-colonialism genocides and claimed genocides, pointing to an article about that related subject? For example, it's not clear to me whether the Armenian genocide is colonialism (and therefore belongs on this page) or if it's a non-colonialism genocide and therefore belongs on a different page. The Wikipedia:List selection criteria for this page appear to be: "the intentional elimination of Indigenous peoples as a part of the process of colonialism", with Indigenous people defined as "people whose historical and current territory has become occupied as a result of colonial expansion, or it has become occupied as a result of the formation of a state by a dominant group such as a colonial power". Maybe we need would decide that this is more similar to the Rwandan genocide and Bosnian genocide subjects, which do not appear on this particular page.

Overall, I encourage editors to think about what edit(s) could be made that have a chance of not getting insta-reverted by someone with the opposite view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

much of contemporary examples will always be contentious, as are examples of modern day colonialism… i support changing contemporary examples to alleged contemporary examples, and being more inclusionist than exclusionist with much of this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A number of editors are arguing that Palestinians are not indigenous (eg the Palestinians are not widely described as indigenous except for several opinionated articles) so cannot be included in this list. The article Palestinians currently describes them as "native to Palestine" in the lead opening sentence and many sources are listed at Talk:Palestinians#Indigineity so this argument has no basis other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"Native" and "indigenous" are not quite the same. Origin of the Palestinians suggests that multiple different groups can claim to be indigenous. I guess the question is about the definition of indigenous. There are some scholars who declare the Jewish people to be (some of) the indigenous people belonging to that land, others who declare the relative incomers of Arab Palestinians to be the indigenous ones, and still others who say that the Palestinian Bedouins/Israeli Bedouins deserve that label more than either of the other two groups. I don't think we can find an answer that will settle the question in the real world, but we might need to figure out whether the Arab Palestinians (with a history of, say, 13 centuries in the area) are "indigenous enough", and the Israeli Jews (with a history of perhaps 40 centuries in the area) are "outsider enough", to belong in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Why does a higher threshold seem to be applied to Palestinians? Are Irish and Slav indigenous? Saying "Arab Palestinians" only have a history of "13 centuries" is not supported by genetic studies, which go as far as Bronze Age [1] Bogazicili (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier The fact interpretations of genocide change with time, like all concepts and terminologies, are probably the best way to frame the inclusion. The zeitgeist seems like it's heading in that direction. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

!votes

• Oppose - per the recent RM consensus at Gaza genocide, we cannot put it in Wikivoice that a genocide is taking place. Putting it here would do that.

Further, this is a list of genocides of native people by non-native people. That isn’t the case here, where both groups are native. BilledMammal (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Examples of genocides in article of "native" vs "native" people

Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Colonization_of_Hokkaido is an example of the genocide of the Ainu by the Japanese majority. Both can argue to be "indigenous"

Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Armenian_genocide is an example of Ottomon Turks, with explicit sentences about the Turks in constantinople attacking Armenians in the capital

Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Myanmar/Burma is Burmese majority attacking the rohingya

Examples of alleged genocides occurring, done correctly in WikiVoice

Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Bangladesh uses allegedly in wikivoice

Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Canada_2 states in wikivoice that a government report suggests that Indigenous women suffer disproportionate violence Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

None of the examples you list are native peoples vs native?

The alleged genocides you list go beyond the scope of the list and shouldn't be in either; those NPOV issues don't justify introducing new NPOV issues. BilledMammal (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The article clearly makes leeway for "native" vs "native" accusations.

Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Bangladesh is a prime example, it uses allegations correctly in wikivoice to describe an ongoing genocide of two peoples who both claim indigeneity.

Going beyond "NPOV", all contemporary examples of genocides are never neutral. Removing such large portions like that defeats the point of an encyclopedia to inform. Best we can do is correctly attribute in wikivoice, which is what the section does. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The Bengali’s aren’t native to that region. BilledMammal (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The history of groups in the indian subcontinent is a mess of various ethnic groups moving around, with a long and storied history. [[2]] states its a "melting pot of various ethnicities", and while the Hill people probably have the best claim to the land for their area, exact definitions of indigeneity are not useful to debate on here.

If I didn't use the accusation of Bengali people committing genocide against the chittagong, I could have used the accusation of the burmese Rakkhine people attacking the Rohingya in the Myanmar example. Or the turks attacking armenians who had lived for centuries in constantinople.

We should not be litigating which claims are right and wrong, we can just state it in correct WP:WIKIVOICE by attributing claims to the correct peoples. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - many of the contemporary examples in this article are necessarily contentious, which means sourcing reflects as such. Using WikiVoice to correctly describe the Palestine allegation should keep the article and section fair. We should also maybe change "contemporary examples" to "alleged contemporary examples" in the section heading. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Comment - In addition, Could we get guidance on how to interpret WP:NOCONSENSUS vs WP:ONUS on inclusion of disputed material in (growing likely) scenario of no consensus?

  Previously, the material had been up for a few weeks before the original RFC, it had been editwarred back and forth before staying up for a month, then got edit warred and removed during this RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, didn't we just have a vote on this? Adding this would be a major WP:NPOV violation for three reasons: (a) the very allegation of genocide against Palestinians is *extremely* controversial, which many call a fiction/propaganda; (b) we can't label Palestinians solely in wiki voice as indigenous, this is also very contested. If Palestinians are indigenous, Jews should be described as such too, since the Jewish people have existed as an indigenous people and a nation with distinct ethno-religious identity in this area a millenia before Christ. Encyclopedically, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be described - as is commonly accepted - as an ethnic conflict between two ethnic/national groups, each with its own claim of nativity/indigenity, rather than a genocide of an indigenous people. HaOfa (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  didn't we just have a vote on this No, look at the question. Note also that Gaza genocide was not an option at the time of the prior RFC, it is available now, obviously not fiction/propaganda and obviously not sufficiently controversial to avoid a notable article being created. Why does the genocider indigeneous/non indigeneous status matter? Would one be guilty but the other not? Obviously ridiculous. The status of the genocided is important for this list but there is ample scholarly evidence presented on this page and elsewhere for that. Therefore the objections presented reduce to naught. Selfstudier (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  A) All of the alleged genocides are extremely controversial, and wikipedia editors can always find sourcing that genocide A was fiction or genocide B was false, especially for contemporary politics.

  B) The previous RFC threw away reasoning around indigeneity and who should be considered indigenous and who shouldn't (Closer argued that its not their job to adjudicate that)

  it can be solved in the text by using WP:OPINION and properly attributing to text A says Palestinians are indigenous, text B argues both Jewish and Palestinians are indigenous etc. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: The crux of the problem is the lack of consensus on whether Palestinians should be considered indigenous peoples in Palestine. This would need to be established at a different venue (e.g., Talk:List of indigenous peoples). Once there's a rough consensus for this, inclusion of Gaza genocide here would be automatic. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  The previous RFC argued that claims of indigeneity are not useful arguments for inclusion on here without real context. Also many of the contemporary examples of alleged genocide involve a claimed "indigenous" population doing alleged violence against another "indigenous" population. See the rohingya section on here.

  Indigeneity should not be the sole useful criteria to adjudicate because we def won't solve that as per last RfC:

  "The closer considers assertions that would require he make a ruling on millenia of human migratory patterns and property claims to be irrelevant if no further reference to policy or guidelines are contained in the comment. Many (not all) comments in the exclude camp relied on these arguments, and some (though much fewer) in the include camp did. " Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  See my comment in the discussion section. I would say this rough consensus exists already. Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I'll write here what I also said in another related vote today. First, the ongoing war, started by Hamas, is not widely recognized as genocide, and the allegation itself has been described by many as inaccurate and even politicized. We should keep this page focused on actual, widely accepted cases. Otherwise we turn this article, which is about a very serious and important issue, to a propaganda page that would be used in future conflicts to attack opponents with unverified allegations, undermining what genocide really is. And here specifically, another thing applies, the Palestinians are not widely described as indigenous except for several opinionated articles, and as we know, they identify as Arab. Most see themselves as Arabs who came to the Levant from Arabia and Egypt under Muslim rule. Given that they should not be described as indigenous (maybe just part of them, so if we consider them all indigenous, Jews are no less indigenous, as this is where the Jews first appeared in history, and are named after the area of Judea in the Levant). For these two reasons, this allegation has nothing to do here. Galamore (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support At a minimum, the article should state:

South Africa's genocide case against Israel accuses Israel of a Gaza genocide of Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war.

Mention might also be made of the long standing Palestinian genocide accusation. Genocide of Palestinians by Israel is clearly a notable topic.

The argument that Palestinians are not indigeneous has no basis in sources see, the article Palestinians which currently describes them as "native to Palestine" in the lead opening sentence and many supporting sources are listed at Talk:Palestinians#Indigineity Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Selfstudier إيان (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral while the content is equally or more meriting of inclusion of some of what's already in the article, I would like for the article to be rewritten to, instead of attempting to be an exhaustive listing of all incidents, instead cover the topic as a whole: discussing the relationship between indigenous identity, settler colonialism, and genocide, the aspects that set this type of genocide apart from others, etc. (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe it warrants a split? Might make sense conceptually. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with @Buidhe overall. This article needs a lot of work. If it's going to be a list, we need to figure out whether it's meant to include indigenous-on-indigenous genocides. For example, most of this seems to be pretty focused on "modern wealthy country vs now-threatened culture" genocide, but I don't see anything about the Aztecs, who were steadily killing off all their neighbors, or anything about the genocides in the Bible. The Rwandan genocide gets mentioned only in a quotation, and the Bosnian genocide, the Isaaq genocide, and others are mentioned only in the navbox. I suspect that tells us something about the intended subject of the article: not every native group is "indigenous", and only genocides that involve a perpetrator who is clearly non-indigenous are meant to be mentioned here.

  I also see some ordinary mistakes. Genocide of indigenous peoples#Causes of Indigenous Deaths blames "U.S. colonization" for indigenous deaths, but apparently forgets that most of these deaths (mostly due to disease, especially disease unintentionally and unknowingly spread by escaped livestock) happened before the U.S. existed. This is just due to poor writing (e.g., not keeping things in chronological order) and should be relatively easy to fix. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Actually I strongly disagree with this comment, which contains several inaccuracies. You presume that all "native" people are "indigenous", but in fact one of the most commonly used definition of indigenous people is essentially those affected by colonialism. Thus this article topic (as far as I've found in reliable sources) is nearly equivalent to "genocides committed by colonizers". Unless an event is actually called genocide of indigenous people in reliable sources, it cannot be included in this article without being original research.

  Although disease was the proximate cause of death for many indigenous people from the Americas, recent historians are emphasizing the role of colonizer policies—such as forced migration, forced labor, and other abuses—in rendering indigenous people vulnerable to disease and population decline. Furthermore, the role of intentionality is not the same in all definitions of genocide used in scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this RfC is the place to discuss the article scope. This shouldn't be used as an excuse to exclude mention of Palestinians. Bogazicili (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Palestinians are not widely recognized as indigenous, and these events are not widely accepted as genocide. This page should focus on established cases. ABHammad (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  The Palestinians are not widely recognized as indigenous False. See Talk:Palestinians#Indigineity where you attempted to cite the economist as a contrarian view to scholarly material.

  these events are not widely accepted as genocide. Of course, that's why we have two articles, Gaza genocide and Palestinian genocide accusation, duh. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support I really do not see how anyone can object to mention of these issues, under the current scope of the article. This article seems to have 3 components for inclusion of material:
  • 1) Genocide part: There is enough reliable sources for this to warrant inclusion, including opinions of genocide experts such as Raz Segal [3][4]. There is still some controversy, so the text cannot be in Wikivoice, and should include both arguments per WP:NPOV. But the controversy alone is not enough to justify exclusion of this material. The text doesn't have to be in Wikivoice. For more information, also see: Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate
  • 2) Indigenous part: This article seems to use the dictionary definition of "indigenous". All modern-day Levantine populations have ancestry from Bronze Age Southern Levant [5]. As such, Palestinians are also indigenous. Some UN documents also seem to define Palestinians as indigenous [6]. Given mention of people such as Irish and Slavs, this article does not use the narrow and official UN definition of Indigenous People [7]. Under the narrow UN definition, only 6.2% of the world populations is under the "Indigenous People" designation. A lot of subjects in this article shouldn't have been here under such a definition. Again, saying Palestinians are indigenous does not have to be in Wikivoice. The article should also recognize the different definitions of the word indigenous. But we do not have to restrict this article to the official UN definition. This RfC is also not about the article scope. Including people such as Irish and Slavs, and excluding Palestinians seems biased to me. If you want to argue about the article scope, do it another time. For more information, also see: Talk:Palestinians#Sources and [8]
  • 3) Colonial part: According to this study [9], various Jewish groups in modern-day Levant can also be considered indigenous. But that doesn't change the fact that multiple sources have described Israel as colonial, such as "Settler Colonial" [10] and "colonial democracy" [11]. Bogazicili (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • There seems to be various sources that tie all this together. For example, the report by Francesca Albanese submitted to the UN [12][13]:

    • 5. UN independent experts,5 scholars,6 and states,7 including South Africa before the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”),8 have warned that acts committed in this latest onslaught may amount to genocide...

    • 7. The context, facts and analysis presented in this report lead to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met. More broadly, they also indicate that Israel’s actions have been driven by a genocidal logic integral to its settler-colonial project in Palestine, signalling a tragedy foretold.

    • 9. Genocidal intent and practices are integral to the ideology and processes of settler-colonialism,16 as the experience of Native Americans in the U.S., First Nations in Australia or Herero in Namibia illustrates...

    • 10. Historical patterns of genocide demonstrate that persecution, discrimination and other preliminary stages prepare the ground for the annihilation stage of genocide.20 In Palestine, displacing and erasing the Indigenous Arab presence has been an inevitable part of the forming...

      Bogazicili (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Support. Plenty of sources place these topics within this article's scope, so they are worth mentioning here. If there are also independent sources which disagree, then that might affect wording and balance, but we should avoid genocide denial and colonial erasure.  — Freoh 14:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is generally understood as a struggle between two ethnic groups, both laying claim to being indigenous. Classifying it under "Genocide of Indigenous Peoples" oversimplifies the conflict and misrepresents the broader context. The claim of genocide, on its own, is currently a minority view and highly contested, and labeling the conflict as a 'genocide of indigenous people' might even edge into WP:SYNTH territory. UnspokenPassion (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Banned sock [14] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as inclusion would amount to a implied statement that a genocide is occurring, which fails NPOV, as well as per UnspokenPassion's point about indigeneity. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support, but... - There are plenty of scholars writing about Palestinians as an example of genocide of indigenous peoples. Here is a small selection, by author and date:
  • A. Dirk Moses 2023 [15]
  • Ghada Sasa 2022 [16]
  • Mohammed Nijim 2020 [17]
  • Daud Abdullah 2019 [18]
  • Lana Tatour 2019 [19]
  • Nur Masalha 2018 [20]
  • Rana Barakat 2017 [21]
  • Mark LeVine 2017 [22]
  • Linda Tabar and Chandni Desai 2017 [23]
  • Haifa Rashed and Damien Short 2014 [24]
  • Martin Shaw 2013 [25]
  • Multiple authors (including Ilan Pappe) in this 2010 book [26]

Those are a lot of big names, like Moses, Masalha, Levine, Short and Shaw. This is clearly "a topic." That said, I don't think Wikipedia should state in wikivoice that it is a genocide, but rather state, as this article already does with respect to various other examples, that it's "alleged," "accused," or "described as by some," or words to that effect. But the RS coverage is there for inclusion, without a doubt: these works say "genocide," "Palestinians," and "indigenous." I found them via Google Scholar, which has 16,300 hits for those three words.

I echo Buidhe's sentiment, that this article is currently more like a "List of indigenous genocides" rather than an article about it, and it could be retitled as "Genocides by colonizers". A list is useful, but a rewrite of the article to talk about the topic rather than just list the examples, would be even more useful. TIA to anyone who tackles that challenge. Levivich (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. — Beating a dead horse won't make it travel in any desired direction. "Genocide" is easy to assume in the midst of a costly war, especially when one is rooting silently for one side over the other. There was previous debate over whether the Israelis or the Palestinians were "indigenous" peoples in their entirety, with time factors in history and other variables involved, and which is yet another aspect of this debate that garnered no consensus. Also, I have to take exception to the comment made by the nominator who apparently is not happy with the previous 'No Consensus' decision, i.e. " this argument has no basis other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT". This opinion has a flip side. i.e.An argument neither has basis simply because WP:ILIKEIT. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Gaza genocide will now be included in the List of genocides per Talk:List of genocides#RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide therefore the horse is still kicking, rightly so.

  And at Talk:Palestinians#Indigeneous based on the plentiful supportive sourcing, there is an emerging consensus for that, too.

  Leaving your argument in tatters, again rightly so. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Gloating doesn't leave anyone's argument in "tatters", so I would lose the sophomoric attitude and try to be more objective in matters, esp with those that concern the idea of 'indigenous'. I'm seeing substantial objections from a number of editors on the Talk page you refer to. So far we have a clear 'no consensus' in this RfC, so if the decision turns out as such, we will have conflicting articles. Yes, as far as I can tell, there is indeed more RS that have referred to the war, that Hamas escalated by invading Israel, committing mass murder and taking hostages , as something that amounts to "genocide". It seems many of these sources dismiss the idea that Hamas, and now Hezbollah, have killed may Israeli citizens, and taken many as hostage, some of whom are turning up murdered. We should be reminded that a one sided POV can still be effected regardless of how many sources one can line up. And let's not forget Hamas/Gaza get their main support from Iran, who has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map", a clear indication of genocidal intent. Iran would not be lending Hamas and Hezbollah support if they were not on that same page. The questionable criteria that amounts to "genocide" in this case can also be applied to most wars, not to mention Hamas, et al, , but it seems the most important thing to some folks is sticking that label on Israel. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You should know better than to make the WP:OR/WP:NOTFORUM argument that the scholars all got it wrong. Levivich (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Your general and unresponsive comment isn't very clear, while it seems you're trying to speak for all scholars, as if they are all of the same opinion, which I don't quite understand as you've listed some interesting sources above that acknowledge that Hamas' actions could also be construed as "genocide". In any case, if what you suggest, here, was true then the title of this page would have the term "indigenous" capitalized, per the last RfC over that issue. Also, if you subscribe to the UN and other's criteria for "genocide", then indeed (very) many other wars could be considered such acts, including the actions of Hamas/Palestinians who preach racism to their children in schools, many of which is, along with hospitals, where they store their weapons, so if they are targeted they can run that affair up the media flag-pole. In any case, if the scholars don't hold the feet of Hamas-Palestinians to the same fire as they do with Israel, then we indeed have a POV and Neutrality issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• You also might want to take a look at the dozens of sources in the Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel article. It is not OR to evaluate the sources, i.e.that is our job, to determine if they are RS. -- It is indeed OR if you cherry pick the sources and post your own subjective conclusions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• TIME: Is What’s Happening in Gaza a Genocide? Experts Weigh In
  e.g. "All scholars who spoke to TIME say that it is much more likely that both Hamas and some Israeli officials could be found guilty of crimes against humanity. "

Off topic discussion

Do try and stay on topic. Selfstudier (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC) Unresponsive, understandably. The topic is about scholar's opinions over what amounts to "genocide", on both sides of the fence, with some examples thrown in, while addressing the idea of OR. Do try to pay attention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC) . The topic is about scholar's opinions over what amounts to "genocide" No it isn't, the RFC question I will repeat here: "Should this article mention any or all of Gaza genocide, Palestinian genocide accusation and South Africa's genocide case against Israel?" Do keep up. Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC) "Keep up"?? Many topics are covered above, e.g., Rwandan genocide, points about what is or isn't "genocide", Irish and Slavs, UN definition of "genocide", South Africa's accusations against Israel, a list of other sources, "Arabia and Egypt under Muslim rule", etc, etc, all in context over whether inclusion is merited here, so if you're not going to respond, please stop harassing editors with whom you disagree as a substitute for your inability to address points. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC). You bludgeoned another recent discussion, don't bother doing it here, thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC) No one has "bludgeoned" anymore than you have.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC) If we need to discuss that, we will do it in another place. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC) Your signature occurs in this section 28 times, mine has occurred 24. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC) Bludgeoning is not defined by number of edits. Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per the above sources, and the nom's comments. No obvious reason not to include given the sourcing providing clear eligibility for inclusion as a valid scholarly perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Selfstudier, Bluethricecreamman and NPOV. M.Bitton (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Upon reading the preceding discussion, it seems that those who oppose the inclusion of Palestinians in this article do so based on their personal opinions on the Israel/Palestine conflict and out of a desire to litigate the applications of terms like genocide, native, indigenous, etc. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to decide which terms are or are not applicable - there is no shortage of reliable, expert sources (Bogazicili and Levivich have provided just a small slice of the literature on the topic in their comments above) which apply these terms in this context. There is a wealth of literature on this topic and to exclude it would be blatant POV-pushing. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

References

deletion of japanese genocide of ainu

can someone take a look and go revert that change? editor has been using account to edit Ainu people apparently? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)